this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
487 points (96.7% liked)

News

23310 readers
4654 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 88 points 5 months ago (5 children)

This is the problem when we 'win' lawsuits like this.

The money doesn't come out of the pockets of the police or the politicians who are doing wrong; the taxpayers foot the bill.

I'm saying not to sue, I'm saying we need to change the way people are held responsible.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 48 points 5 months ago (2 children)

In California, the major utility provider was found guilty in relation to wildfires, and fined.

Guess what happened to electricity rates...

[–] bradv@lemmy.ca 61 points 5 months ago (3 children)

That's an argument for making utilities publicly-owned again more than anything else.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

It can be both

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Publicly-owned like the school district?

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

At least in the Bay Area, there's a few cities that have municipal utilities (owned and ran by the city). Usually this is because they installed power lines before PG&E existed.

In those areas, the electricity rates are less than 1/3 of PG&E's rates. Residential electricity is around $0.16/kWh in Palo Alto and Santa Clara (city, not county), compared to something like $0.55-0.60/kWh in summer peak with PG&E.

One of the things with PG&E is that customers in city areas subsidise customers in rural areas, since it's quite a bit more expensive to service customers in rural areas. Most of the price difference is greed, though. PG&E have record profits every year. The municipal electricity providers are non-profits and have an incentive to keep prices low.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 5 months ago

The thing that confuses me is that California bailed out PG&E when they declared bankruptcy, yet PG&E are still operating as a for-profit company? They essentially just got free money from the government. Why didn't the government take over the company?

[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Eh, if the government fucks up then it has to pay, the taxpayers should pressure the government to not fuck up again if they don't like having to pay for making people whole

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you, but to the average citizen, they are unaware of the direct consequences of those who they are voting for, especially when it relates to taxes. To some, this could be seen as a direct result of the "woke agenda" and would be anti-woke tax. They might double down and reelect their candidate who got them into this mess to "fix" the system and stop the tax increases, since that's easier than actually creating meaningful changes in society.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

It should be the job of the opposition politicians to let the citizens know that was the consequence of who they were voting for.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The point here is that they and everyone else in the state has to correct their behavior now and one person was made whole.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And how has this penalty incentivised any change in behavior? I assume the money will come from the school district, which is earmarked from local and federal taxes. So now there's less money to pay for schools. In practice the school board may do as they wish with less funding until they are not reelected. Do you think they will be firing or docking pay of the people who are actually to blame?

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Because a court just said that they can’t do that. That’s what incentivized change.

[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I've always found it absurd how you can get compensated with amounts of money you would not see in a lifetime of work if you win the right type of legal case in the US so much so that purposely getting hurt to sue has become a running joke. Nothing against this particular case or individual but it always seemed like a perverse form of justice instead of, for example, making the party in the wrong change their policy to avoid similar incidents happening in the future while also covering legal fees.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The large sums of money are supposed to be punitive. They're supposed to hurt the offender enough that they won't do it again.

Unfortunately, the sums are rarely high enough to do that, and usually get cut several times in appeals.

A better method would be going after the individuals responsible for it directly, instead of the entire organization. But that'll never happen.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

As the common sentiment goes:

If fines aren't high enough to be punitive, they're just the cost of doing business.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I’ve always found it absurd how you can get compensated with amounts of money you would not see in a lifetime of work if you win the right type of legal case in the US so much so that purposely getting hurt to sue has become a running joke.

This isn't entirely unique to the USA. It takes different, and even worse forms, in some other countries.

In China for car accidents theres a history of the offender intentionally killing the injury victim to avoid having to pay for a lifetime of disability payments. Its cheaper for the offender to pay a one-time fine for killing than it is to pay for years or decades to support the victim financially. source

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

To paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others,

[–] pikmeir@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

While I get what you're saying, the best type of outcome for something like this will be a policy change to avoid similar incidents. However if you were to force policy changes through these sort of lawsuits, you would have the defense fighting for the smallest policy changes and even arguing that these small changes infringe their rights or are cruel and unusual - this would be even more complex to solve, and ineffective. The better way is to make penalties high enough that those penalties themselves motivate policy changes that will actually be effective. It puts the people being punished in charge of their next possible punishment, and this can lead to even better policy changes than simply doing it directly.

For an example, if you sued a company because you stepped on a nail left by their construction crew (which was proven to be willful negligence), they might argue that they can simply sweep up any remaining nails. By changing that to a $1 million fine, they're going to not only remove all of the nails, but make sure they never get left on the floor ever again. You can't get this effect by simply ruling "no more nails on the floor."

[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I mostly used that example since it was a school district so it would be feasible to enact actual policy change that would punish violations internally. I agree that for private corporations this does not work but for public institutions it's also not as effective of a deterrent as it could be due to lack of direct financial accountability.

[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

The tax payers need a wakeup call to let them know that their votes matter